FTC believed to be investigating Apple's anti-Flash stance - Page 6

OK, I'm a bit late to this thread but I'll try an introduce some analysis. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who knows more about this stuff.

Apple wants all developers to use the Cocoa Touch API - but why is this? Most people (Daniel Dilger) will say "because it ensure a consistent, accessible and beautiful user interface", but a quick look at the architecture of the operating system sheds a little more light.

Implicitly, sitting above the top layer is your Objective-C code. Apple don't actually reveal very much about how their App compiler / packager actually works - but running the top command via OpenSSH reveals some things I found interesting. When you scroll through a list of options, say in the settings application, the application's CPU usage shoots up - as does the usage of SpringBoard (the home-screen). This strongly suggests to me that the actual API "Cocoa Touch" is either embedded in the Springboard application or a significant part of user interface work (i.e. compositing / producing the bitmap that's fed to the screen) is done inside SpringBoard.

This top output - for example - was while scrubbing through the list of top stories in the Guardian.

So we've got one application that takes care of the media. With the on-screen controls, SpringBoard's CPU usage shoots up to around 18%, suggesting that it is heavily involved in compositing.

As for core-services: other than search they seem to be buried inside the Core OS and therefore can't be displayed by top (I don't think...).

So what this means is that Apple's software platform is centralized - only one instance of the services which power the audio, video and visual interfaces are active at one time and all applications must use them. This makes sense - it saves memory because each application doesn't have to load up mediaserve - and means that the operating system kernel doesn't have to decide which applications get access to the screen or video hardware - because all requests (even OpenGL seems to be rendered, passed into SpringBoard and then passed back out) go through these special applications. As a result Apple has, by accident or design, precluded the development of software libraries that access the hardware directly - despite the fact that on a mobile device these facilities need to exist - and that is probably what the FTC must decide is anti-competitive. This means that Apple can, quite legitimately, claim that Flash would eat up the CPU, simply because it can't draw directly to the screen and must go through these servers. This is not a problem on desktop computers, simply because there's so much more power.

No matter what the FTC's decision might be there's no getting round it for Adobe - an alternative intermediary software layer that runs on the iPhone will be forced to duplicate what's already running - at least in the mid-term future. However, Apple could probably make dispensations to permit 'more' direct access to the hardware (this might well end up being important to Adobe - its' very likely that it uses a common rendering engine across all platforms to ensure consistent results), or returning screen co-ordinates to an optional flash 'server' that runs outside normal applications.

Actually, there's no such threshold. But go ahead and show us where the Sherman Act defines a monopoly as 40%.

The more astute reader will note that that's not exactly what I wrote. This is commonly called a "straw man attack", obvious enough in itself and your coupling it with ad hominem attacks further on only draws attention to the lack of merit in your post.

While there is no fixed percentage of market control defining a trust per se, those who follow antitrust litigation will observe what this analyst notes:

For extra credit, feel free to show where the Sherman Act says that monopolies are illegal.

Another straw man from the man who just doesn't know when to quit.

The Sherman Act does not say "monopolies are illegal", but instead merely defines many of the laws which comprise the foundation of antitrust regulations in the US. On this Wikipedia is your friend:

"The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. § 1–7) requires the United States Federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Act

Quote:

I don't know why you're so eager to make yourself look foolish. You claimed that Apple's profits were excessive - and then used gross margin (which some uninformed people call 'gross profit') figures. And then you keep repeating the same mistake over and over - even after you're told.

I will correct you on this for the last time: It was the article I quoted which referred to the figure that so offended you as "gross profit". In that thread I also kindly supplied you with the contact info for AppleInsider to assist you in finding the only party who can possibly help you if you take exception to their choice of words. Instead, you merely persisted with your personal attacks (a frequent gambit of yours and a regular source of amusement to the readers here).

You are free to retract your claim, or perhaps better still just move on and leave that embarrassment behind you. As you wish.

Quote:

But the important thing is that the entire premise of your post is wrong. Apple has no obligation to make life easier for developers.

Three straw men in one post. Well done; no one here could have discredited you more effectively.

Indeed, I fully agree that Apple has no obligation to make it easy for developers to deploy to iOS, and developers are responding in kind:

I would just like to end this conversation with one praise for Adobe (well actually Macromedia) I'm quite fond of the timeline based method of working in flash. I have repeatedly badgered Apple over the years to introduce a timeline based tool to its suite, and I'm still convinced that it is on it's way, combined with Quartz Composer, one day, fingers crossed.

I totally agree. Imagine if a company was able to create a modern, rich language with a coherent and consistent API framework and then marry that with the time-saving features of a powerful timeline editor for animations and transformations.

The FTC has no more right to tell Apple that they should support Flash iOS apps than they do to tell them to support Flash plug-ins. If they go down that path, what's next? Telling Apple that Mac OS X has to run Windows apps natively without purchasing other software? Telling Microsoft that Windows has to be written in Objective C? Or maybe telling Sony that they're not allowed to sell a DVD player that doesn't play Blu-Ray as well as DVDs. Or maybe telling Ford and GM that they have to design their cars so engine parts are interchangeable.

I don't think your analogy is accurate. It's more like Microsoft saying that only applications developed with Visual Studio are allowed to run on Windows, or Sony saying only Sony brand SD cards can be used in Sony products, or GM saying you can only use GM brand windscreen wiper replacements.

I'm actually interested to know if Adobe abused any of Apple's patents in the process of creating iOS compatible applications.

Funny I use the apple trailer site since most of the best trailers end up there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigAppleW

People that hate Flash are just those who hate advertising...which is the only viable financial model for most web sites.

Or people who hate buggy, shitty software that crashes often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigAppleW

ClicktoFlashers are no different than software pirates: Entitled, sophmoric, selfish, and shortsighted.

Wow, nice. I realize you were just trolling here and all, but you are obviously fucking stupid making statements like this.

Also, since when is there a law that companies are required to support your software? The government is going to step in and tell Apple that they have to run Flash when Adobe can't even produce a working version that doesn't drain battery life like a frat drains a keg?

Flash is harmful because neither Mac nor Linux is marketed effectively enough to take a mere 10% of the market from the abysmal garbage that is Windows?

Kindly enlighten us on the correlation.

Sometimes, I really wonder at your lack of simple understanding. Flash is harmful because the implementation, which pretends to be part of the www, is tied to specific platforms, which web content ought not be. Sorry, everyone, for having to state the obvious to the oblivious.

I don't think your analogy is accurate. It's more like Microsoft saying that only applications developed with Visual Studio are allowed to run on Windows, or Sony saying only Sony brand SD cards can be used in Sony products, or GM saying you can only use GM brand windscreen wiper replacements.

...or Nintendo insisting that you can only deliver games for their platform on cartridges they manufacture:

Originally Posted by RationalTroll
Flash is harmful because neither Mac nor Linux is marketed effectively enough to take a mere 10% of the market from the abysmal garbage that is Windows?

Kindly enlighten us on the correlation.

Sometimes, I really wonder at your lack of simple understanding. Flash is harmful because the implementation, which pretends to be part of the www, is tied to specific platforms, which web content ought not be. Sorry, everyone, for having to state the obvious to the oblivious.

While you review the question to better understand how your reply fails to address it, the rest of us are left wondering if such abstract claims are related to some sort of wacky numerology.

When are they going to put some effort into Flash on the Mac or Linux?

It's been said before: Flash runs great in Windows because Microsoft worked with Adobe. The only effort that's needed for OSX is on Apple's part, but they don't want Flash to have the same access to the innards of the OS as it does in Windows, because Apple is convinced it's a security flaw.

What you have in the end is Flash working great in Windows, with security holes patched by Microsoft, and exploits handled by anti virus software, and Apple sitting like a child with their arms crossed not wanting to do any of that. It's most definitely in Apple's interest to pursue html5, spread misinformation about flash, and demonize Adobe.

It's been said before: Flash runs great in Windows because Microsoft worked with Adobe. The only effort that's needed for OSX is on Apple's part, but they don't want Flash to have the same access to the innards of the OS as it does in Windows, because Apple is convinced it's a security flaw.

What you have in the end is Flash working great in Windows, with security holes patched by Microsoft, and exploits handled by anti virus software, and Apple sitting like a child with their arms crossed not wanting to do any of that.

So you're saying that Apple protects their users from shitty software? Fantastic!

... Take it how you want it, but Apple can't just point the finger entirely at Adobe when clearly it runs fine in Windows.

There I fixed it for you.

But, your whole argument is a bit silly. Flash could have run fine on Mac OS X if Adobe wasn't insistent on implementing it as a Windows application. Flash is a big pit of bad web design, Adobe is utterly incompetent and will never be able to support Flash on 7 or 8 platforms, and frankly, once it's gone, no one will look back missing it.

Funny, I've had many instances of Flash crash on me and cases where flash based advertising in an open browser bogged the computer down horribly so WoW ran like utter crap until I found which tab had the offending ad and blew it away. I don't even own a Mac and use Windows, so clearly it isn't all OSX people who have problems with Flash. I've disliked Flash for the better part of a decade

Funny, I've had many instances of Flash crash on me and cases where flash based advertising in an open browser bogged the computer down horribly so WoW ran like utter crap until I found which tab had the offending ad and blew it away. I don't even own a Mac and use Windows, so clearly it isn't all OSX people who have problems with Flash. I've disliked Flash for the better part of a decade

Firefox users have had complete control over that for years. If Apple felt strongly about this maybe they could provide their users with the same flexibility in Safari that the rest of the world enjoys.

Take it how you want it, but Apple can't just point the finger entirely at Adobe when clearly it runs fine in other operating systems.

But they will anyway, just as Steve did in his easily-debunked "Thoughts on Flash" in which he made a big stink about Adobe not having completed the costly transition from Carbon to Cocoa without noting that Apple themselves have failed in the exact same way with Final Cut Pro and even the most commonly-used part of OS X, the Finder.

Apple finally stomached the development expense of that transition with the Finder, but only as recently as Snow Leopard, almost as many years as they chastised Adobe for not spending their own money on that sort of thing.

Last I heard Apple's Final Cut Pro is still not "OS X-native" as Steve puts it.

This is what I mean about how Flash, as a medium, essentially sucks because it causes "developers" to focus more on the presentation (and, let's face it, most just aren't talented enough to get away with that) than on the message. In the best case, it doesn't add anything, In the worst it detracts. And, as a video container, it's just a complete waste of resources.

Agreed, I probably just lost a client because they wanted a website just like one they saw on the web that is completely done in Flash, with dancing images that took forever to load and just wasn't very informational as to what the company was doing. So all "flash" and no substance.

Well, I refused, the client was incensed, how dare I refuse to create what they want? I explained to them that while I could use Flash I didn't have lots of experience with it and that recently I decided to spend my time learning html5 instead of increasing my Flash skills. I also explained that the site they liked probably took a bank of programmers to create and that it was quite expensive (way out of this clients budget for sure) I also pointed out that it took forever and many clicks to get to any real information and while that may be fun for a fifteen year old, anyone who is busy wants the information they are seeking within the first 30 seconds of their coming to a site. I also pointed out the fact that all the SEO companies tell me to take Flash off of sites they are optimizing, so I am not willing to put together something that I will need to take off anyway. Yep, that pissed them off.

But who is going to pay for my time to learn Flash to the level it is needed? Not this client for sure. So let them go find a Flash programmer that will charge double of what my fee is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

A lot of people do, but it's just plain irrelevant.

The FTC has no more right to tell Apple that they should support Flash iOS apps than they do to tell them to support Flash plug-ins. If they go down that path, what's next? Telling Apple that Mac OS X has to run Windows apps natively without purchasing other software? Telling Microsoft that Windows has to be written in Objective C? Or maybe telling Sony that they're not allowed to sell a DVD player that doesn't play Blu-Ray as well as DVDs. Or maybe telling Ford and GM that they have to design their cars so engine parts are interchangeable.

It's just not within FTC's purview to tell Apple that they have to support Flash plugins OR Flash apps.

Yep, just like no client can make me learn more Flash if I don't want to. If they want Flash they can go somewhere else.

Bottom line, I test all of my sites on my 2G iPod touch, the html5 stuff always runs smooth (all of the demos on Apple's site run perfectly) So for me it is a matter of investing my time into a format that works the best, if that was Flash, I would be there, but it isn't, it really isn't. That said, I still like the animation tools in the Flash program itself so I will create animations using that program and export to a video format instead of a swf format. As a website developer I find using javascript, CSS and html far more challenging, yet far more rewarding than using Flash and all of its proprietary action script. It is confusing for me, being mostly a designer, to learn one set of scripting commands then have to learn a whole different set of commands that are similar but very different for Flash.

So I lost one small client, but one of my other potential clients, the Goodwill site for the local area, just was handed a memo from the central office saying that all Goodwill sites should be created in standards compliant formats instead of Flash. Their reasons are mostly for access for handicapped, but there it is. They want all sites recreated in html5 when it comes time to upgrade again. That is why they are considering using my services, it would be a nice big client, we'll see, but I will be ready to give them what they want.

Flash, HTML5 comparison finds neither has performance advantage
A comparison of streaming video via the Adobe Flash and HTML5 formats with numerous different browsers on both Mac and Windows produced wildly different results based on the operating system and browser, making neither a clear winner.http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...advantage.html

As most here know, the bulk of the work with video is done in the codec; any wrapper will be a very small contributor to total CPU usage.

What specific percentage of cycles do you attribute to the Flash player as separate from the codec, and how did those measure for you when you ran similar tests with HTML5?

Can you give us any details on the testing methodology you used to arrive at your claim?

Sometimes, I really wonder at your lack of simple understanding. Flash is harmful because the implementation, which pretends to be part of the www, is tied to specific platforms, which web content ought not be. Sorry, everyone, for having to state the obvious to the oblivious.

You mean like how html5 videos can directly access the gpu to streamline the experience (and lessen cpu load)? Or how safari, chrome,firefox, and opera will all be updated this year to support over a dozen new api hooks that allow web content access to your hardware specifically because they need to do this to make content interactive. So does this mean html5 is now harmful?

Flash doesn't require a specific platform to run, it requires those platforms to work with adobe.

You mean like how html5 videos can directly access the gpu to streamline the experience (and lessen cpu load)? Or how safari, chrome,firefox, and opera will all be updated this year to support over a dozen new api hooks that allow web content access to your hardware specifically because they need to do this to make content interactive. So does this mean html5 is now harmful?

No, I don't mean that at all. I clearly mean Adobe's historically demonstrated inability to properly support Flash on multiple platforms, making the lousy user experience, or lack thereof, entirely dependent on a single company. What various browser vendors do, independently, but based on standards that are open to all of them is exactly what should happen.

Quote:

Flash doesn't require a specific platform to run, it requires those platforms to work with adobe.

Then how do you explain that there's no flash for PalmOS or Symbian or WinMobile, either?

And why should Apple violate their security controls to allow Adobe access to OS internals when no one else needs it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RationalTroll

The more astute reader will note that that's not exactly what I wrote. This is commonly called a "straw man attack", obvious enough in itself and your coupling it with ad hominem attacks further on only draws attention to the lack of merit in your post.

Actually, the reader with even one eye half open will be able to see your nonsense for the unmitigated BS that it is. Readers with both eyes open are mostly just laughing their a$$e$ off at how foolish you look.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RationalTroll

While there is no fixed percentage of market control defining a trust per se, those who follow antitrust litigation will observe what this analyst notes:

Very nice. Your own graph shows that Android OS has more developer interest than iOS - and several others are close behind.

If Apple is right in the middle of the pack with a large number of competitors in the OS space, what's your rationalization for singling Apple out for investigation? (Other than your rabid hatred of everything Apple does, of course).

It's also interesting how far down the list Flash and Flash Lite are. Looks like your own chart proves that Flash is not so critical.

Oh, and btw, I've seen that chart before. I wonder how all the Android fanboys rationalize that with their complaint that Apple gets 96% of online software sales? Must be a lot of android developers doing a lot of work for nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RationalTroll

...or Nintendo insisting that you can only deliver games for their platform on cartridges they manufacture:

That's nice. So when are you going to sue Nintendo because your xBox 360 games won't run on it? That's the nearest analogy to the Apple situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronster

It's been said before: Flash runs great in Windows because Microsoft worked with Adobe. The only effort that's needed for OSX is on Apple's part, but they don't want Flash to have the same access to the innards of the OS as it does in Windows, because Apple is convinced it's a security flaw.

That's just Adobe's rationalization. No one else has access to the internals of Mac OS X - and other apps do things that are even more complicated than Flash without having access to the internals.

Your response to a post about comparative productivity is to try to change the subject to matters of personal aesthetic preference.

No, the issue is that EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM IS TRUE, it is meaningless. Apple has no obligation to make life easier for developers. If they do a bad job of supporting their developers, then the developers will leave - which HELPS the competition. So your silly claim actually DISPROVES your claim that Apple is stifling competition.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Cool. Can you share with us the HTML tag we'd use to get videos to play on as many current browsers as Flash is used on?

The VIDEO element, if it isn't already, will soon be working on more browsers and platforms than Flash. Yes, I know you want to include IE6 and other legacy browsers in your count, but that depends on never advancing the technology of the web in any way, so is a bit of a ridiculous position to adopt, just to try to win a debate point. But, if you wish, feel free, and I will grant your point, as an entirely meaningless one.

Apple hasn't decided that you can't have Flash, Adobe did. THERE IS NO FLASH ON MOBILE DEVICES WITH THE IPHONE'S CPU POWER. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Granted, the iPhone 4 has a CPU that is theoretically powerful enough to run the slow, buggy version of Flash that they have on Froyo, but this discussion has been going on for years and Adobe never released a version that would run on any earlier iPhones. It has never been demonstrated, it has never been released through Cydia, it hasn't even been rumored.

It's not just the iPhone. Where is Flash for ANY 400-600 MHz CPU smart phone out there? Is it Apple's fault that Adobe never released a version for WinMobile or PalmOS or Blackberry or Simian?

I have a motorola Droid. It has a 550mhz processor. I also have Flash 10.1 Beta 3 installed on my phone, I've been using flash since it first came out in public beta for android (running stock kernal so as not to skew results) It's not "slow" or "buggy" like you're claiming. Flash based video plays great. Yes, it stutters a bit over 3g, but so did my computer when I tried tethering it to my 3g connection.

Palm Pre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpI6gA9cuME
No, it's not out yet, but they released the API to their mobile partners. And they're still developing for it. They didn't develop for palmOS because palmOS is DEAD and has been for awhile.

Blackberry's need a better web experience before they consider flash, that being said, Adobe does plan on developing for them. Their new HTML5 browser doesn't support even HTML5 video. They stopped development on WINMO because microsoft is dropping winmo6.5 entirely. They have said they're going to work with MS to bring it to window sphone 7.

Quote:

Apple has made a decision to support fully developed technologies that add value to the phone. Adobe has had years to do that and has failed. Apple finally got tired of it and said 'too late'. At the same time, developers have been realizing that Flash is a fail on mobile devices, so you see more and more formerly Flash-only sites going to html every day. Car dealers, Disney, Youtube, Hulu, NBC, NY Times, and so on. Flash is no longer needed for most people. I've never missed it on my iPhone (other than the very first year or so before all of the above conversions took place).

HTML5 based mobile optimized sites just started appearing in the past year. That puts flash at most, 12 months "behind" the curve. Youtube didn't go full HTML until a few MONTHS ago, and neither did most of those websites you're listing. Yes, there was a youtube app, but it couldn't play all videos, and the HTML5 beta for the desktop version couldn't play all videos until very recently.

This "years" time frame you're trying to make up is a maxium of 12 months, for most of the sites you just listed, it's 6 or fewer. So where are these "years" your speaking of? By your own contention, phones have JUST become powerful enough to support flash as it is in the past 8 months. That doesn't sound like years to me.

Quote:

Your demand is like someone demanding that Ford put an 8,000 pound tow hitch on a Ford Fiesta. Could they do it? Sure. But it would still be clunky and the car is incapable of safely pulling 8,000 pounds. It's just not a suitable combination.

And that's not a suitable comparison. A better one is If ford came out and said the future of camping was collapsible space tents, so no hitches could be developed for their trucks anymore.

Quote:

You have a choice. You can buy an iOS device or you can buy something else. Just keep in mind that, when it comes to Flash, 'something else' limits you to about 0.1% of the phones on the market. But if Flash is critical to you, that's your choice.

Or he can get any modern android phone that's known to be getting 2.2 which is a lot more than 1% of the market.

Quote:

It is really amazing how some people manage to make EVERYTHING Apple's fault. If it rains today, is that Apple's fault, too?

Apple won't allow adobe to develop for their mobile platform (this is why it's not on Cydia. Adobe's not going to waste time making flash 10.1 for something only jailbroken devices can access) and they don't allow adobe access to api's on their desktop OS.

Before you say they shouldn't need it, some of these API's are the SAME api's Google and others are developing HTML5 content to take advantage of. The SAME api's that apple should be building into their own safari browser by the end of the year.